efanton

But you are wrong. A balloons surface has an area which can be measured and therfore can be considered bounded. Now I would agree that a path across that surface is effectively infinite. As I understand the big bang theory space and therfore the universe is being created as iflation continues. The universe cannot be infinite unless you wish to discount totally Alan Guth's theory of inflation as with inflation space, time and the universe are growing. Something thats growing cannot be infinite.

The universe is expanding and by definition must have boundaries. Otherwise the Universe would be infinite and therefore incapable of expanding. Agreed what is observable is not the limit of the univserse, but within that visible limit it might be possible to decern the physical shape of the universe.

Wow, thats a serious bit of software. Thanks for posting the Vid. From what they mapped it does appear that the universe is spherial and that you get a good idea of where our galaxy the milky way is situated in relation to others. I will keep my eyes open for updates on this. Thanks for the link, better than what I was expecting. the software can be downlloaded here http://www.amnh.org/our-research/hayden-planetarium/hayden-planetarium-promos/download-files

that is exactly my point Chrispen Evan What I am looking for is the actual phyiscal shape of the universe not the theoretical shape. I did hear at some point there was some sort of project to actually map this in a 3d model but I have failed to find it in my search the web.

Thanks pwagen you have gone some way to helping me understand what I'm seeking, you help is much appreciated. It still confounds me how the scientist can predict that 24% of the universe is dark matter and 71% of the universe is dark energy. Krash, I have seen those diagrams many times. As far as I understand it they are theoretical diagrams to help understand the warping and expansion of space and are not meant to be true representations of the actual physical shape of the universe. I dont, and I am sure you dont, believe that the universe exists in a single plane as is represented by diagrams 2 and 3. I suppose from all I have read and studied in the last few weeks about this subject there can be no definitive answer to my question at this time.

ok, you seem to understand my point. Now with all our measurements, and thats not many when we consider that we are trying to measure the universe, how can the physical shape of the universe be determined and how has it been determined that so much matter is missing?

How are they distorted? Do you mean the fact that they're red-shifted? Then yes, we know they have been red-shifted, which is one of the reasons we know the universe is expanding. no I meant exactly what I said. If we measure the distance to two different supernovae our measurements will be distorted. Both have moved in relation to the earth due to expansion but both measurements are wrong. We have measured where they were millions or billions of years ago. For our measurement to be correct they would both have to occur at the same time and both be at the same distance to avoid the different amounts of distortion for the two separate supernovae by the expansion of the universe over time. Even assuming you mean red-shifted when you say distorted, I'm not following this, so you might have to clarify what you mean . I think I expained this above. as both events occured at diferent times the distance to the closer supernova will be less distorted by expansion than the one further away. the scientists are measuring the time it took for the light to travel not the actual distance.

I fully understand the above. I guess I used unfortunate phrasing to try get my idea accross. see what you have done? You have gone from a 3D visualisation of the universe to a 2D version. Both cannot be correct. let me try get my problem with understanding existing theories accross in a different way. we have the earth and a distant super nova just like the two raisons in a cake being streched apart. When we look at that supernova we are not looking at it in current time we are looking at where it was millions or possibly billions of years ago. In that time both the earth and the supernova have moved in relation to each other. Yet we use type 1a supernova's as standard candles to measure the distance between. The distance we measure is obviusly not the true distance. we can safely assume that all supernova events did not happen at exactly the same time. Therfore the distances that we assume for two separate supernovae cannot be correct they have been distorted by the expansion. Now like the cake analogy, if expansion is constant, the distance to a supernova occuring closer to us will not be as distorted as one further away. in effect our understanding of the universe's shape has to be totally distorted. The only way that it could not be distorted is that the speed of light also changes with the expansion of the universe. Without being able to accurately measure the distances how can scientist even begin to argue that matter is missing or that there must be dark matter or energy to fill the gap of the missing matter. I find it impossible to believe that the universe exists in a single plane. Everything around us is in three dimensions, how could it even be postulated that the surface of the universe is curved that would imply a totally flat universe, and we know what happened to the flat earth theory. this all leads back to the same issue. How can we be assured that distance measurements are in anyway accurate?

sorry but I cant afford to buy magazines so will be uable to read that article None of your response considers the potential of voids being a viable option in the universe or the issue that all our measurrement are based on the measurement of light traveling from distant super novae and any poetential void affecting that measurement Surely this is the most important question of the day. Can we trust the measurements of light from distant super Novae? Is there any definitive proof these measurements are correct. If light can be bent by gravitational lensing, is it possible that distortion of light rays could account for the missing matter? Is it not conceivable that what we are seeing is a distorted view of the universe?

this relates to the dark matter / dark energy and why it is thought that so much of our universe is missing. I have to admit before I pose my questions that I have a strong interest in astronomy but no university or physics background. What I know and understand has come from book. documentaries, talking to others interested in astronomy, and probably to some degree my own interpretation of what I have read and watched. So please if I am wrong in my questioning point out where I am wrong so that I ccan learn rather than shooting me down in a ball of flames. If we are to agree that the universe was created in a big bang and that bang has stopped then would it be fair to assume that the universe is shaped like a sphere but with a void in the middle? as all mater would be traveling apart at roughly equal speeds and the inital shape was spherical that would be a reasonable thing to assume. I do understand that the big bang is not a description of an explosion as we typically understand them but all points of matter expanding away from each other. This begs some serious questions If there is a void in the middle then can light travel across this void? Think about this before jumping to the first answer that seems obvious. we are told that space time expanded through inflation as part of the big bang theory. does this mean the universe's shape is spherical or is space dependant on matter or particles being present? If it truly is spherical, then this contradicts the WMAP survey results. If the universe had a void in the middle and light could not travel accross this void then is it possible that this could account for what is considered missing from the universe. If light could not travel across the void then it would have to travel around it. That would mean that light would not travel in direct straight lines but follow the curved surface. That would then infer that measurements taken from distant supernovae would not be the true distance, but the curved distance traveled by the photons. Some of this might seem a bit way out, but it is not intended too. I am simply trying to get my head around the whole big bang thing and why this issue of dark matter / dark energy has recently become the explaination for the missing matter. Maybe its our measurements that are wrong and through that the need to suddenly find a whole lot of matter that does not exist.